UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

Check out the picture below from Ellusionist (source), which is intended to show how thin their new E7 stock is compared with their B9 stock. Notice especially how the yellow arrows indicate the how thick the two decks are. The size difference is represented by the arrow on the top right. Seems impressive, doesn't it?



But do you notice something wrong with this picture, and with the message it gives? The arrow on the top right is completely misleading, because it doesn't take into account the relative position of the two decks!

In the picture below, I compare the actual difference in size between the two yellow arrows, by using green lines to compare how the arrow on the left (B9) compares with the arrow on the right (E7). The pink arrows indicate the actual difference in thickness between these two decks. And it's considerably smaller than the yellow arrow that Ellusionist has added to the image on the top right!

Conclusion: Ellusionist is trying to make us think that the difference in thickness is much bigger than what it actually is.



Deceptive advertising? I think so. Regardless of whether this was intended deliberately or was just an accidental blunder by the person responsible for this image, this picture misrepresents the facts and gives a distorted impression, making things look much better than what they actually are.

Ellusionist, I'm calling you out, and and suggest you remove this image from your product page, or at least fix it!

Well... Yes, the picture is misleading, but is it a claim that makes that much of a difference?

EndersGame wrote:...making things look much better than what they actually are.

Thinner isn't necessarily better, except for a few specific uses/users. The arguably "best" stock available has for a long time been Bee Casino stock, which is among the thickest. And they're still quite a bit thinner than normal, it's looking like maybe 25% compared to their misleading ~33%.

Let's be honest, most advertising is exaggerated and idealistic. Maybe I've been desensitized, but this doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to me.

EDIT: I appreciate you sharing this, though. I haven't bought the Blue Cohorts myself yet, so this is definitely informative.

Like the ads we see for McDonald's or Burger King, I think it's kinda inevitable but people should be able to tell that it's just advertisement?

Being a Design Engineer, I noticed this immediately when I first saw the photo. Didn't care enough to comment at the time. Their sheep likely didn't notice and don't care.

MagikFingerz wrote:Well... Yes, the picture is misleading, but is it a claim that makes that much of a difference?

EndersGame wrote:...making things look much better than what they actually are.

Thinner isn't necessarily better, except for a few specific uses/users. The arguably "best" stock available has for a long time been Bee Casino stock, which is among the thickest. And they're still quite a bit thinner than normal, it's looking like maybe 25% compared to their misleading ~33%.

The only time I reach for a thinner deck is if I am doing card productions, but having a flesh colored vs standard back is what makes or breaks that

Decknowledgy wrote:Like the ads we see for McDonald's or Burger King, I think it's kinda inevitable but people should be able to tell that it's just advertisement?

I would say this is more deceiving than fast food ads. Fast food ads are required to show the actual food they serve and everything must be edible (that doesn't mean they cant choose the best looking parts). The laws on that are actually pretty strict for false advertising. They aren't falsely advertising the feature, it does exist, just not to the extent that they are showing.

At the end of the day, I don't care, because I am not going to buy them anyway.

Yeah, but you know what? I'm glad EndersGame performed this little exercise.

I love to read EG's essays, just like I enjoy MagicOrthodoxy's and The Gentleman Wake's reviews, and part of what lends credibility to their essays and reviews is the fact that they don't just fawn all over how everything is always awesome. They also don't just blurt out, "this sucks!" They show what it is they think has an issue, and explain why it's a problem.

Like many of y'all, I saw this ad and thought, that's clearly not quite right, but I'm glad EG called them out on it and highlighted where the deception was for all to see.

rousselle wrote:Yeah, but you know what? I'm glad EndersGame performed this little exercise.

I love to read EG's essays, just like I enjoy MagicOrthodoxy's and The Gentleman Wake's reviews, and part of what lends credibility to their essays and reviews is the fact that they don't just fawn all over how everything is always awesome. They also don't just blurt out, "this sucks!" They show what it is they think has an issue, and explain why it's a problem.

Like many of y'all, I saw this ad and thought, that's clearly not quite right, but I'm glad EG called them out on it and highlighted where the deception was for all to see.

I was immediately hooked on Omar's YT channel when I heard him offer real criticism in his review of a very popular deck. I have started to follow Magic Orthodoxy as well and enjoy his content. I haven't really seen any of EG's blogs until I saw a post about everyday terms that stem from playing cards. He does some incredible work! I absolutely love when praise and criticism are presented thoughtfully and with plenty of examples. I look forward to more content like EG's.

rousselle wrote:...They also don't just blurt out, "this sucks!"...

How dare you.

TwoPiece wrote:

rousselle wrote:...They also don't just blurt out, "this sucks!"...

How dare you.

For the part with the false advertising... I mean it is Ellusionist we are talking about! I for my part see the consumer always in the responsibility to fact check. Doesn't really worth talking about in this case. Yah, the perspective is off in the pic, because they were too lazy to make a new pic, but If some one really doesn't sees this at first glance ...

I see things that are quite more conserning, imo. For example the marbles release. Where they released them in batches what made a lot of people think that they will be a limited release. They didn't really false advertise there (they mentioned before that the marbles will be a continious deck), but seeing how people react to this kind of things always makes me believe that it is like that on purpose.

Yeah, I thought the same thing when I first saw this. Merely using perspective to favor your marketing is tricky but not deceptive; using lines to suggest an actual difference in proportion to this is outright lying.

Let's put this to rest once and for all. I have both the Red B9 and the Blue E7 Cohort decks, so I took some of my own photos showing the difference in thickness more objectively. These photos show both decks side-by-side, including all 52 cards and 2 Jokers.



Here's a close up shot, showing the individual cards more clearly.



How much of a difference is it? Well count the cards between the lines and see for yourself. The E7 deck is 6 cards thinner than the E9 deck.



Finally, here's a straight comparison and close-up.



For the record, I do like the thin E7 deck, and I will be writing a positive review and article about it shortly. It's slightly thinner than a typical USPCC deck with thin-crush stock.

But I think it's important to be truthful and share facts, and not make things look more impressive than they actually are. Hopefully my photos here help set the record straight about how the difference actually looks in person with the naked eye.

EndersGame wrote:But I think it's important to be truthful and share facts, and not make things look more impressive than they actually are. Hopefully my photos here help set the record straight about how the difference actually looks in person with the naked eye.

You really have put much effort into this, then I would have ever even considered to debunk E!'s false advertising, thank you for that.
Do you have a response from E! yet? As for now, picture is still up.

shiroo56 wrote:You really have put much effort into this, then I would have ever even considered to debunk E!'s false advertising, thank you for that.

Do you have a response from E! yet? As for now, picture is still up.

It actually gets worse. I checked Ellusionist's original image more closely. The B9 deck on the left has 56 cards, while the E7 deck on the right only has around 42 cards! See the image below, where I've shown detail from their product image, and marked each set of ten cards (counting up from the bottom of the deck).

Even if I've miscounted by a couple of cards, it's still an obvious discrepancy that proves that this is more than just a misleading perspective. Ellusionist hasn't even got a complete deck of cards in their photo to begin with, so no wonder the E7 deck looks so much thinner - it's missing more than a dozen cards! This also explains why the difference in the thickness of the two decks seems much more drastic in the comparative photo from Ellusionist than it does in my comparative photos.



An Ellusionist representative has commented here, but didn't really offer much more on the point I was raising, except to minimize and dismiss it with this: "What doesn't really help anyone is "calling us out" for meaningless things like a picture trying to illustrate a point."

Nice thread. Seems like objective criticism is again handled like a personal attack against the company. Pityful world. As if it is that hard to alter a picture for them. 1 minute of work max, for a skilled person.

If that Cristopher guy is really an official from Ellusionist and this is all they have to say about this, I wouldn't put any more effort into this. They aren't worth your time.

EndersGame wrote:

shiroo56 wrote:You really have put much effort into this, then I would have ever even considered to debunk E!'s false advertising, thank you for that.

Do you have a response from E! yet? As for now, picture is still up.

It actually gets worse. I checked Ellusionist's original image more closely. The B9 deck on the left has 56 cards, while the E7 deck on the right only has around 42 cards! See the image below, where I've shown detail from their product image, and marked each set of ten cards (counting up from the bottom of the deck).

Even if I've miscounted by a couple of cards, it's still an obvious discrepancy that proves that this is more than just a misleading perspective. Ellusionist hasn't even got a complete deck of cards in their photo to begin with, so no wonder the E7 deck looks so much thinner - it's missing more than a dozen cards! This also explains why the difference in the thickness of the two decks seems much more drastic in the comparative photo from Ellusionist than it does in my comparative photos.



An Ellusionist representative has commented here, but didn't really offer much more on the point I was raising, except to minimize and dismiss it with this: "What doesn't really help anyone is "calling us out" for meaningless things like a picture trying to illustrate a point."

I thought about this in the first place, but somehow I was to lazy to count. Thank you for that effort!

Update: The Ellusionist representative didn't deny the accuracy of what I uncovered about the E7 cards in the image not being a complete deck. Instead his response was simply: "Adverts sometimes exaggerate to make a point."

Quite frankly, I find that very disappointing. There's no indication in the accompanying ad copy that the product image is an exaggeration to make a point. It is clearly presented as giving an objective comparison between the thickness of the two decks, when in fact it turns out that one of the decks has more than a dozen cards missing! Ellusionist's product page doesn't even mention that the actual difference between the two decks is only a thickness of 6 cards.

I find this all deceptive and misleading, and this should make it harder for all of us to trust what Ellusionist says about their products - they seem quite happy to compromise the truth, if this example is any indication. If Ellusionist really wants to maintain their credibility and integrity at this point, they should take the comparative product image down, given that the it has now been exposed as factually inaccurate - apparently quite deliberately.

EndersGame wrote:

shiroo56 wrote:You really have put much effort into this, then I would have ever even considered to debunk E!'s false advertising, thank you for that.
Do you have a response from E! yet? As for now, picture is still up.

An Ellusionist representative has commented here, but didn't really offer much more on the point I was raising, except to minimize and dismiss it with this: "What doesn't really help anyone is "calling us out" for meaningless things like a picture trying to illustrate a point."

Lol. "You wouldn't exist if not for us, so stop bitching about something stupid we did."

shiroo56 wrote:Nice thread. Seems like objective criticism is again handled like a personal attack against the company. Pityful world. As if it is that hard to alter a picture for them. 1 minute of work max, for a skilled person.

If that Cristopher guy is really an official from Ellusionist and this is all they have to say about this, I wouldn't put any more effort into this. They aren't worth your time.

If this Cristopher is really an official from E, I'll never buy anything from them. I don't condone this kind of position from a company.

I retract my previous post in this thread. Using angles or shadows or the like to exaggerate a visual representation - not a big deal, it happens a lot in advertising. Using literally less cards to show exactly how thinner a deck or its stock is, that crosses the line into false advertising in my mind. And now E is making things worse; they should at least own up to it.

Thanks for all your work, EG!

I retract my previous post in this thread. Using angles or shadows or the like to exaggerate a visual representation - not a big deal, it happens a lot in advertising. Using literally less cards to show exactly how thinner a deck or its stock is, that crosses the line into false advertising in my mind. And now E is making things worse; they should at least own up to it.

Thanks for all your work, EG!

+1

I agree. Messing with the alignment I can buy in exaggeration. However, reducing the number of cards in one deck crosses the line in my book as well. I would rather them respond differently, but what are they going to do? Pat you on the back for catching their clever misdirection? I don't think so. Great job EG.

What a slimeball response, they removed 25% of the deck.

MagikFingerz wrote:I retract my previous post in this thread. Using angles or shadows or the like to exaggerate a visual representation - not a big deal, it happens a lot in advertising. Using literally less cards to show exactly how thinner a deck or its stock is, that crosses the line into false advertising in my mind. And now E is making things worse; they should at least own up to it.

Thanks for all your work, EG!

First, let me state that I really didnt care that much until he replied, and tried to defend an illegal practice. "Exaggerating a visual representation" is literally the legal definition of false advertising. It will get you sued, or worse. When I do ads, if I ever tried to pull what they did with this, I would get fired and blacklisted. There are many things you can do to a product, like color enhancements, or a certain degree of photoshopping to make a product look better. I dont think I would have that big of an issue if they had a disclaimer that says something like "Not an actual comparison"

For those interested, the legal definition and requirements for false advertising, of which I would say they hit all 5:
Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, a claim can be made against a defendant for false or misleading advertising. For a claim against a defendant for false advertising, the following elements are met and the plaintiff must show: (1) defendant made false or misleading statements as to his own products (or another’s); (2) actual deception, or at least a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience; (3) deception is material in that it is likely to influence purchasing decisions; (4) the advertised goods travel in interstate commerce; and (5) a likelihood of injury to plaintiff. However, the plaintiff does not have to prove actual injury.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/false_advertising

And yes, I am aware that I am pedantic.

More Ellusionist narcissism? Color me surprised You don't get to just coast along forever because you've been doing this for a while....

And yes - in ways I cannot go into - Ellusionist is a very big part of why Theory11 exists, and a couple other vendors too.

Ellusionist is pathetic. It's too bad that they used to make good decks that I can't throw out in protest of their current existence.

Yeah, I get the point the E rep is trying to make (do not agree, though) but he's going about it all wrong. That's an appalling way to respond to Ender, who has only been respectful the whole way through. Those responses really do tarnish their image.

As further evidence that Ellusionist doesn't seem to be honest with us, here's some more fuel for the file. On their product page for the Blue Cohorts deck, Ellusionist states that the E7 stock is exclusive to Ellusionist:

"Printed on our brand new luxury pressed E7 stock in a vibrant blue, this is the crushed stock deck you’ve been waiting for. We worked hand-in-hand with Cartamundi to find an answer to ‘Bicycle Crushed' and boy did we deliver! As an Ellusionist exclusive this is the only place you can get the thinner-stock cards produced with a durable Cartamundi finish."

Meanwhile, a brand new Kickstarter for the custom Conjurer deck from Arcadia Playing Cards states the following:

"Cards printed by Cartamundi on their exclusive E7 finish (also called B9 slimline). ... Yes, it's the same stock as the Blue Cohorts."

Wait, these statements contradict. Is the E7 stock an Ellusionist exclusive, or is not an Ellusionist exclusive? Someone isn't telling us the truth here. And if this thread is any indication, methinks it might be Ellusionist that is the guilty party. I have reached out them directly for their comment on this.

I'd venture a guess that the Blue Cohorts were just the first (and at the time, only) deck with that finish, so they went ahead and used that "exclusive" statement as another exaggeration.

MagikFingerz wrote:I'd venture a guess that the Blue Cohorts were just the first (and at the time, only) deck with that finish, so they went ahead and used that "exclusive" statement as another exaggeration.

Now it all makes sense, E! doesn't stand for Ellusionist, it stands for EXAGGERATION!

A little diversion for you. Since they were mentioned, let's see what Ronald and the King have to say about each other.

https://youtu.be/_AjRR6c--Ak" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

shiroo56 wrote:

MagikFingerz wrote:I'd venture a guess that the Blue Cohorts were just the first (and at the time, only) deck with that finish, so they went ahead and used that "exclusive" statement as another exaggeration.

Now it all makes sense, E! doesn't stand for Ellusionist, it stands for EXAGGERATION!

"NOW EXCLUSIVELY EXAGGERATING 7 TIMES MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE!

Don't blame us, you wouldn't be here without us.

E!"